On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 03:16:07PM +0000, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:09:08PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > On Jan 18 2023, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > > Partly OT, what is riscv not defaulting that on as well? Does it have
> > > > usable unwind info even without that option, something else?
> > >
> > > The RISC-V ABI does not address this, AFAICS.
> >
> > And neither do many other ABIs, still we default there to
> > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables because we've decided it is a good idea.
>
> That might or might not be, but in the context of this thread that's
> immaterial. Doing the same as the other archs will then simply hide the
> problem on risc-v as well, instead of fixing it.
Yeah, that is why I've mentioned "Partly OT". We want this bug to be fixed
(but the fix is not what has been posted but rather decide what we want to
ask there; if it is at the end of compilation, whether it is at least one
function with that flag has been compiled, or all functions have been with
that flag, something else), and IMHO riscv should switch to
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables by default.
Jakub
